Extreme Conservatives Are Happier People?

[dales]

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/24/extreme ... u_partner/

Pacific Standard

Given the many instances of Tea Partiers lashing out in anger over the past few years, it’s reasonable to think this is an extremely unhappy group of people.

Reasonable, but wrong.

At least, that’s the implication of newly published research from Canada. It finds a “significant association” between authoritarian attitudes and a subjective sense of well-being. These findings are “in line with evidence that conservative ideology … may promote positive psychological outcomes,” writes a research team led by psychologist Cara MacInnis of the University of Toronto and Michael Busseri of Brock University.

In the journal Personality and Individual Differences, the researchers describe a study featuring 237 Canadian university students. Participants provided a set of opinions to determine the extent to which they are aligned with right-wing authoritarianism—that is, a tendency to submit to authority, condemn those who violate the rules, and uphold established traditions.

They then gave a second set of opinions designed to determine their “social dominance orientation,” another aspect of generalized authoritarianism. Specifically, they expressed the extent of their agreement with statements such as “Some groups of people are just more worthy than others” and “In getting what your group wants, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.”

Finally, they were asked to rate their current life on a scale of one to nine (from the “worst life I could have” to the best). They were also given 20 adjectives (10 positive, 10 negative) and asked about the extent to which each described how they feel “in general.”

The results: “On the general level, greater generalized authoritarianism was clearly related to greater subjective well-being,” the researchers write. “The association suggests that generalized authoritarianism may be ‘good’ for the self.”

In some ways, this result is counterintuitive. Much previous research has tied conservatism to higher levels of perceived threat. It’s hard to reconcile how people can both feel threatened and have a strong sense of well-being.

On the other hand, a strong sense of social hierarchy (the notion that everyone has their place) can arguably provide a coherent structure that makes the world seem less chaotic—and theoretically more controllable. That could, in turn, promote a sense of well-being.

It’s also important to note that the study participants were overwhelmingly young and female. They were also Canadians, who as a group report higher levels of well-being than Americans. It’s conceivable that an older, more male-skewing, U.S. sample could produce different results.

Still, this research calls into serious question the notion of far right-wingers being grumps who are taking out their misery on those around them. If these results are correct, they may be making others (such as, say, Republican moderates) plenty miserable, but on a personal level, they’re doing quite OK.

I tossed this out as a bone to anyone who chooses to gnaw away at the entrails. I don't believe the hypothesis of this article for one minute. "Happiness" is found within and NOT through political ideology (KDF-Wagen non-withstanding)

[Lord Jim]

The whole premise is wrong, because the Tea Party types by and large are deeply distrustful of authority, (in many cases to the point of paranoia) they're radical Randians, not authoritarians...

The author of this article obviously doesn't know anything about the Tea Party, (he doesn't seem to know anything about "authoritarianism" either) and is completely talking out his ass....

[dales]

It's from Salon Magazine, Jim.

[rubato]

The headline, referring to "Tea Partiers", was not written by the study's authors. For those really trying hard to read.


And it must be said that "Tea Partiers" are only nominally anti-authoritarian just like Republicans* are only nominally anti-debt.

But that may be the common thread. Children with trisomy 21 and people with Alzsheimer's are both famously happy. Disconnection from reality makes you happier.

yrs,
rubato


* the party of borrow and spend, spend and borrow who turned a surplus into a deficit in 1 year.

[dales]

Are you a "happy camper", rubato

I got JJ Cale, blasting away.

[rubato]

Are you a "happy camper", rubato

I got JJ Cale, blasting away.

I'm generally more optimistic than most people but that might be due to the arc of my life tending to better more than worse, so far. The fact that many people, like yourself, are not smart enough to promote your own interests is a little depressing.




yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Disconnection from reality makes you happier.

Then you must be the happiest asshole this side of the nut house...


The assertion is absurd anyway...

Apart from rube, (who obviously is miserable, despite his disconnection from reality) there are folks like Steve, who are about as detached from reality as one can be, and are clearly also in a very deep depression...

The homeless schizos I run into downtown who think the CIA is after them don't seem particularly cheerful...

There is zero causal relationship between detachment from reality and happiness.

But I have to say that I'm not surprised that rube is a fan of this "study", seeing as how it is a complete joke, and rube is a big fan of joke studies; he brings them to the board frequently.

(I'll just mention two; his discredited leaded rice study, and the one he posted here that lumped homicides, suicides, and self defense all together to try to prove that households with a firearm were less safe than those without them...whether rube embraces this kind of crap because of his total contempt for genuine scientific methodology or because of his complete ignorance of it is a coin toss)

There are two major flaws in this particular study; the slanted subjective factors that the charlatans who put this together used to define "authoritarianism", and the howlingly amusing idea that "327 Canadian university students" would be a representative sample from which you could draw any meaningful conclusions.

So aside from misdefining what they are allegedly trying to measure, and using a sample group from which they could reasonably extrapolate absolutely nothing, (except perhaps for the relative popularity of a variety of beers) it was a wonderful study....

The folks who funded this nonsense must have money pouring out their ears....

[dales]

The fact that many people, like yourself, are not smart enough to promote your own interests is a little depressing.

yrs,
rubato

I prefer not to be selfish prick .........you?

[Gob]

Unfair dales, you have the option, he doesn't.

[dales]

Yeah, some must contend with their lot in life.

[rubato]

The fact that many people, like yourself, are not smart enough to promote your own interests is a little depressing.

yrs,
rubato

I prefer not to be selfish prick .........you?

Well I have to say your efforts to make life easier for the rich and powerful and harder for the poor and weak show some variety of perverse saintliness. I just wish you didn't fuck all the other poor and powerless people with you.

But as to "selfish prick" I consistently vote to raise my own taxes and then tax myself directly by giving to women's health, education, 2 different groups promoting health in Ethiopia, and various other causes.




yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Good on you, Rube!

You're not the half the selfish prick I thought your were.

[Lord Jim]

But as to "selfish prick" I consistently vote to raise my wife's taxes and then she taxes herself directly by giving to women's health, education, 2 different groups promoting health in Ethiopia, and various other causes.

Fixed.

ETA:

You've bleated this nonsense a number of times before...

If you really wanted to pay more in taxes rube, there's nothing to stop you from doing it right now...

The government will happily accept the money...

The only thing that prevents you from paying more in taxes is the fact that you are not the primary wage earner in your household, and therefore it is not your decision...

I guess there are limits to how generous your wife wants you to be with her money....

[Lord Jim]

Rube, I was going to elaborate on this in the other thread, but given what you've said here, I'll repost the exchange and make my suggestion in this thread...

The Notary usually charges $100.00, pretty reasonable.

Yeah, but does the missus think it's reasonable?

That would seem to be the party who's opinion would matter, here, since afterall, it's her 100 bucks....

ETA:

On second thought, in your case rube, it's probably more than reasonable...

$10 for the service, and the other 90 for having to suffer through your company...

In fact now that I think about it, at $100 to have to spend time listening to you, she's badly under compensated...

Intelligent and successful women are terrifying to you. You have made this plain by years of posts.

You have sought your own level, socially professionally and intellectually, you will never rise above it.

Pathetic.


yrs,
rubato

Here's the problem you have rube....

I understand that having the truth pointed out to you about your dependence on your wife strikes a sensitive and defensive nerve with you...I can understand why it would be painful and upsetting...

But your responding to me with nonsensical bullshit will never have the same impact on me as my pointing out the truth does to you...

You get bitter and frustrated...

But I only get amused....

Trust me on this, you're playing a losing game....

So let me suggest a solution for you here, to avoid having your painful dependency pointed out in the future...

All you have to do is to stop putting up boorish, braggartly posts intended to give the impression that you are a generous man of substantial means when everyone here knows that whatever "means" you possess do not spring from you....

If you do that, then I will make no further comment about your situation...

However, if you persist in trying to puff yourself up into some sort of Mr. Got Rocks, I will call you on it every time....

[Andrew D]

It reminds me of research concluding that women who have had sex only with their husbands are more satisfied with their sex lives then are women who have had sex with more than one person.

Really?

Compared to what?

[Andrew D]

... your dependence on your wife ....

Evidence?

Oh, wait. It's a Lord Jim assertion. That is, in itself, irrefutable proof. My bad.

[Lord Jim]

There was a study done a few years ago, to determine why teen aged girls were having sex...

And the study found that the number one reason that teenaged girls were having sex was,

"pressure from teen aged boys"....

Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather...

What an astonishing result...

[Andrew D]

That's just I'd-better-give-them-the-answer-that-makes-me-look-good pseudo-science.

The truth of the matter is that teenage girls have sex for the same reason that teenage boys have sex: They want to.

[dales]

If it feels good - do it!

(my eyesight gets worse with each passing day)

[MajGenl.Meade]

It reminds me of research concluding that women who have had sex only with their husbands are more satisfied with their sex lives then are women who have had sex with more than one person.

Really?

Compared to what?

Well.... me.... isn't it?